AFLPA

battye · Post: # 950772Post **battye** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 4:57pm

Did they do anything to support Baker, did they even say a word?

Or are they too busy throwing their support behind a former player who was de-listed?

Hmm...

SainterK · Post: # 950775Post **SainterK** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 4:59pm

The AFL Players' Association is monitoring the case. Public affairs manager Ben Hart would not comment on the specifics but said: ''The AFLPA has an interest in ensuring its members have as much information as possible about how the current rules are being applied.''

So, no, not really..

battye · Post: # 950782Post **battye** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 5:03pm

SainterK wrote:The AFL Players' Association is monitoring the case. Public affairs manager Ben Hart would not comment on the specifics but said: ''The AFLPA has an interest in ensuring its members have as much information as possible about how the current rules are being applied.''

So, no, not really..

It's pathetic really

Sainternist · Wed 30 Jun 2010 5:04pm

I was thinking exactly the same thing, battye.

It seems as though they have sat on their hands the whole time.

What is it that the Players Association actually does anyway? Do they serve any purpose?

AlpineStars · Wed 30 Jun 2010 5:06pm

They collect fee's from players. Thats it really.

missgez · Post: # 950786Post **missgez** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 5:06pm

Sainternist wrote:What is it that the Players Association actually does anyway? Do they serve any purpose?

It's purpose is to provide a paycheck for retired footballers who can't get a job in the media

AlpineStars · Wed 30 Jun 2010 5:07pm

info@aflpa.com.au

You could ask them if they are going to help Bakes?

rodgerfox · Post: # 950790Post **rodgerfox** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 5:10pm

SainterK wrote:The AFL Players' Association is monitoring the case. Public affairs manager Ben Hart would not comment on the specifics but said: ''The AFLPA has an interest in ensuring its members have as much information as possible about how the current rules are being applied.''

So, no, not really..

So the rules tell everyone that a strike is only a strike if it is done with mor force than what Chris Judd used on Pavlich.

Right?

So Baker goes out, and based on the rules that we've all been told only a week earlier, plays the game within those rules - yet cops 12 weeks.

I'd be suing the AFL if I was him.

Sainternist · Wed 30 Jun 2010 5:12pm

it's funny, you look at the players' association in say the american sports and it's almost as thought they call the shots.

these guys just seem like a non-entity. they had a perfect opportunity to prove themselves as something to protect the rights and interests of the players.

now they have basically pussed out completely.

SHAME ON LAME!

Milan Faletic · Wed 30 Jun 2010 5:21pm

The AFLPA are conspicuous by offering no statement.

They could have at the very least, commented on the absence of umpiring control in what Ross Lyon described as a "15 minute" period when most of the incidents occurred.

The umpires owe the players a duty of care and at least award a free kick or some kind of penalty if they can see what is going on. Umpire no 8, stood right in front of Johnson and Baker and did nothing. Maybe if the umpires stepped in, neither player would be suspended or Bakes at the worst, would have got far less of a suspension.

degruch · Post: # 950818Post **degruch** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 5:31pm

Maybe we should delist Baker and claim it was his lengthy suspension that forced our hand...then they'd jump...to fund legal proceedings against us.

battye · Post: # 950824Post **battye** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 5:35pm

degruch wrote:Maybe we should delist Baker and claim it was his lengthy suspension that forced our hand...then they'd jump...to fund legal proceedings against us.

Sadly, there is probably a bit of truth in that

rodgerfox · Post: # 950840Post **rodgerfox** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 5:49pm

Milan Faletic wrote:Maybe if the umpires stepped in, neither player would be suspended or Bakes at the worst, would have got far less of a suspension.

What is Baker to think?

Last week Judd breaks open a guys face and the footy world is publicly told that it wasn't a strike because it wasn't forceful enough.

Friday night, he is niggling Johnson, clearly within the rules as outlined by the MRP only a week earlier - and further confirmed by the umpire watching it and not even paying a free kick against him.

At what point is he to think that he's doing anything illegal?

I'd take them to court if I was him and argue that they simply cannot penalise him for rules that appear to be made up or at the very least - changed dramatically after the event.

Halo · Post: # 950862Post **Halo** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 6:26pm

The AFLPA were quick to stick there nose in when the Lovett thing happened but don't seem to worried about what has happened to Bakes !!!

GoTheTorp · Post: # 950865Post **GoTheTorp** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 6:31pm

Halo wrote:The AFLPA were quick to stick there nose in when the Lovett thing happened but don't seem to worried about what has happened to Bakes !!!

Look before you leap, they are already looking at different aspects of the Bakes case that they are not happy with. What will come of it Farknose?

older saint · Wed 30 Jun 2010 6:36pm

Must remember there are 2 sources they get funds from players and the AFL. As clearly the AFL was out to get Baker for the hand hitting the AFLPA have to be careful of the hand that feeds them .

Lots of independent bodies appointed or financed by the AFL?

At least they chould have commented about the slur on the character made by the lab rat ( lawyer) for the AFL

GoTheTorp · Post: # 950873Post **GoTheTorp** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 6:40pm

older saint wrote:Must remember there are 2 sources they get funds from players and the AFL. As clearly the AFL was out to get Baker for the hand hitting the AFLPA have to be careful of the hand that feeds them .

Lots of independent bodies appointed or financed by the AFL?

At least they chould have commented about the slur on the character made by the lab rat ( lawyer) for the AFL

They have commented on it and said it wasnt good and were looking at the lawyers remarks, how far they run with it? probably not far.

I Love Peter Kiel · Wed 30 Jun 2010 11:16pm

They are dogs and so is Chris Dudd>

bigred · Post: # 951091Post **bigred** » Thu 01 Jul 2010 12:21am

The AFLPA are conspicuous by offering no statement

No the lack of comment is typical of a meaningless association.

Membership must only cost $5 per year.

What do they get? A quarterly newsletter?

Bakes wouldn't give a rats.

Sainternist · Thu 01 Jul 2010 12:26am

AFLPA are pathetic. I remember during 2001 GF, Brendan Gale gave this tokenistic 9/11 tribute to the victims on behalf of ALFPA. It was embarrassing.

SainterK · Post: # 951101Post **SainterK** » Thu 01 Jul 2010 12:37am

I sent the AFLPA an email this arvo, voicing my displeasure at their lack of support in relation to Steven Baker. Especially Andrew Tinney's taking advantage of the position he was in during his tribunal hearing, and insulting his character.

Pleased to hear that they have said something in support of Baker tonight, though I am yet to see anything official anywhere?

Teflon · Post: # 951103Post **Teflon** » Thu 01 Jul 2010 12:39am

Sainternist wrote:AFLPA are pathetic. I remember during 2001 GF, Brendan Gale gave this tokenistic 9/11 tribute to the victims on behalf of ALFPA. It was embarrassing.

Brendan Gale.....now theres an embarrassment....cant keep a straight face when I hear this cartoon character lawyer talk......the look on his face appears still to be "frk I cant believe I passed Law school....."

saintbrat · Post: # 951119Post **saintbrat** » Thu 01 Jul 2010 1:35am

now atleast making a statement about something- not the weeks
but the Tinney comment
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/c ... 0-zmso.htm

ST KILDA'S Steven Baker was demeaned at his AFL tribunal hearing by personal character references that the AFL Players' Association has condemned as inappropriate and irrelevant to his case.

References to manliness and bravery made by the AFL's legal counsel, Andrew Tinney, SC, raised the eyebrows of AFLPA boss Matt Finnis at Tuesday night's hearing, and yesterday he and AFLPA president Brett Burton issued their own criticism.

''Comments that go to the character of a player are unhelpful and unnecessary in a tribunal setting which is there to deal with the on-field behaviour of a player, and whether or not that violates rules,'' said Finnis, who attended Baker's hearing

.

Eastern · Post: # 951141Post **Eastern** » Thu 01 Jul 2010 9:11am

The AFL funds the AFLPA to the tune of $12 Mill pa to run its programs. The AFLPA isn't about to bite the hand that feeds it !!

St Michele · Post: # 951147Post **St Michele** » Thu 01 Jul 2010 9:35am

Milan Faletic wrote:The AFLPA are conspicuous by offering no statement.

They could have at the very least, commented on the absence of umpiring control in what Ross Lyon described as a "15 minute" period when most of the incidents occurred.

The umpires owe the players a duty of care and at least award a free kick or some kind of penalty if they can see what is going on. Umpire no 8, stood right in front of Johnson and Baker and did nothing. Maybe if the umpires stepped in, neither player would be suspended or Bakes at the worst, would have got far less of a suspension.

Or wouldn't have ended up with a smack in the head.